http://forum.creativecommons.org/ CC Forum Tag: licensing - Recent Posts en Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:42:47 +0000 http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/172#post-527 Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:41:02 +0000 jolmes26 527@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>giving it freel may possibly do harm to us so i think we should be wise when it comes to using our disclaimers..</p> <p><strong><a href="http://www.mis-sold-payment-protection--insurance.co.uk/">Mis-Sold Payment Protection Insurance</a></strong> </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/172#post-521 Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:34:32 +0000 top10supplements 521@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I think we need to be more careful with our use of disclaimers, we shouldnt be too controlling, but then again we dont wanna give away everything freely. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/172#post-518 Wed, 28 Oct 2009 02:43:15 +0000 hudlas 518@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Yes it is certainly ok to add a disclaimer as it gives you peace of mind in case you get some unscrupulous people.. I have used disclaimers on all my sites and software.</p> <p>Regards<br /> Brett David<br /> <a href="http://www.1weekdetoxdietplan.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.1weekdetoxdietplan.com</a> </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/172#post-487 Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:31:36 +0000 civil rights lawyers 487@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>It's definitely okay to demand a disclaimer. Anyway, if they have common sense then they should have placed a disclaimer without you having to ask them to. That is if they really want to prevent a lawsuit </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/172#post-471 Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:56:52 +0000 JasonAlexander 471@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I think you're absolutely right in asking for a disclaimer, you don't want to discredit your name in any way. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/172#post-464 Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:31:48 +0000 Anonymous 464@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>At this critical juncture in history, America needs a senator in the Tar Heel state like John Quincy Adams – a man of courage, a man so principled that he does not consider himself, his political career or even the industry of his own beloved state above the greater good of the nation,” Creech wrote in an op-ed published by the Raleigh News and Observer. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/172#post-454 Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:07:12 +0000 area rugs 454@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I think that's a given. Anyone who "borrow" a licensed material should have the decency or the courtesy to put a disclaimer without being asked. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/172#post-436 Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:46:16 +0000 Early Learning Toys 436@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I think asking the client to include a disclaimer on their derived materials is a possibility, but as you said this would indicate a breakdown in the relationship. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/172#post-422 Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:09:18 +0000 Lower Ab Workout 422@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Of course you can ask for a disclaimer. You can even ask them to take the material down as long as you it's licensed to you. It all depends on how assertive you are. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/172#post-380 Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:42:21 +0000 edwardjohnson9033 380@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>wow!that's pretty good mate.. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/172#post-379 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:49:20 +0000 Free Flash Arcade 379@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I'm not really an expert on this but I think that it's okay to demand a disclaimer. Asking for a disclaimer is only logical. And as for a possible breakdown in the relationship, I don't think that such a thing would happen. I'm sure that they'd understand. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/172#post-337 Wed, 27 May 2009 01:04:32 +0000 appletea 337@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hi</p> <p>Great website.</p> <p>I am a technical writer at a software company that produces a lot of training materials. We are considering using the BY / NC license because we offer our clients the freedom to create their own training materials using what we have already produced, and we don't want them to make money from the derived materials.</p> <p>I understand that under the CC licenses, if you don't like the use someone has made of your work, you can request the removal of your name from the derived work.</p> <p>However, our company name is also the name of the software, so in the circumstance that we strongly dislike the derived training materials (e.g. we feel those materials badly misrepresent our software), our name will be all through those materials.</p> <p>In that case, under the BY / NC license, could we require that the client include a disclaimer on their derived materials, e.g. '[Software company] wishes to disassociate itself from these training materials.'?</p> <p>Obviously that would indicate a breakdown in the relationship, which is another issue...but it is one we have faced, and we would like more protection than we already have.</p> <p>Thank you for reading this.</p> <p>Kind regards,</p> <p>appletea. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/147#post-297 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:17:53 +0000 danq 297@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I am calling it "the fine print" because of the use of the Creative Commons logo on every page, with the logo linking to the Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 page, when if you look at only one page you will see there is a catch.</p> <p>I am questioning the legality of Meg's actions because the Creative Commons license specifically forbids making exceptions outside of a signature in writing, which the "fine print" does not take into account. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/147#post-296 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:36:23 +0000 FruWikiMeg 296@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>As Danq has taken upon himself to misrepresent what's going on at FruWiki and make clearly LIBELOUS statements about me personally (e.g. "Frugal Scam Artist"), I thought I would clarify some things.</p> <p>I am not "planning on commercializing the material". While that may someday be the case, that is not and was never what this was about. I simply announced on the front page of FruWiki that I am "considering" changing the CC license to one that allows commercial use since it may at some point allow us to share content with other wikis with that license or possibly even GDFL -- something that would benefit readers much more than me since it would also mean that I would no longer be (possibly) the only one who could commercialize the material. I also added a link to the copyright information talk page encouraging discussion as I investigate the legalities. </p> <p>The "fine print" that Danq refers to is a clear, simply written copyright information page that is linked to at the top of the General Disclaimer page and is also listed at the "Disclaimers and Policies" page that is linked to at the top of the homepage -- where I clearly state: "If this is your first time here, please take a moment to check out the disclaimers and policies here." The copyright information page is hardly "fine print". It is a few paragraphs written by a non-lawyer in the belief that that would be sufficient and perhaps a much better alternative to legal obfuscation. </p> <p>You can see for yourself what I have written on the "Copyright information" page here: <a href="http://www.fruwiki.com/index.php?title=FruWiki:Copyright_information" rel="nofollow">http://www.fruwiki.com/index.php?title=FruWiki:Copyright_information</a> . I have never tried to hide anything there. And please, if I have said something that I shouldn't have, please let me know. And please let me know if the CC change is a possibility. I am not a lawyer, nor do I have the money to hire one. I am just a private citizen who is first and foremost on FruWiki trying to create a useful resource for others. And if you run a wiki, you probably realize how laughable the thought is that a scam artist would choose, of all the ways to make money unethically, to set up a frugal wiki site to rip off contributors by using their contributions. </p> <p>Thank you for your time. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/147#post-284 Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:36:30 +0000 danq 284@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hi,</p> <p>The Web site <a href="http://www.fruwiki.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.fruwiki.com</a> claims to be licensed under BY-NC-ND 3.0, though fine print claims that the submissions to this wiki do not fall under BY-NC-ND 3.0 when applied to the Web site's owner, only to its visitors and contributors (<a href="http://www.fruwiki.com/index.php?title=FruWiki:Copyright_information)" rel="nofollow">http://www.fruwiki.com/index.php?title=FruWiki:Copyright_information)</a>.</p> <p>The owner is planning on commercializing the material on the page, essentially ripping off contributions from myself and the other contributors.</p> <p>It is my understanding that any waivers to BY-NC-ND 3.0 must be signed in writing.</p> <p>Are per-user applications of the license allowed? It is also important to note that the Creative Commons logo and metadata are present on the wiki's pages, which could suggest inappropriate use of Creative Commons trademarks. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/75#post-177 Sat, 04 Oct 2008 18:34:32 +0000 mlinksva 177@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>In general CC licenses (nor any public licenses that I know of, eg prior content licenses or software licenses) do not require notification be sent directly to the original licensor, nor do they give the original licensor the right to review/refuse uses. Together these amount to no reduction in transaction costs against the default of no public license.</p> <p>Also, you might want to consider whether your database (not sure what you mean by "database structure") is even copyrightable in the first place, see <a href="http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/open-access-data-protocol/" rel="nofollow">http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/open-access-data-protocol/</a> </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/75#post-170 Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:39:55 +0000 DanLear 170@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hi,</p> <p>I'm developing a database structure that I want to share with other partners, however I want any modifications/improvements to be fed back to me as the lead developer. I also want to agree on further distribution of the database prior to it being disseminated. Is CC the right approach? Has anyone got similar experience?</p> <p>Many thanks<br /> Dan </p>